Well I mean, it's regularly admitted by WotC that the Rogue was designed with the intent that they would get Sneak Attack every round by hiding, so... kinda screwing them over with that. At least for ranged. Melee works anyway because of an adjacent creature.
Extreme self-preservation
Well I mean, it's regularly admitted by WotC that the Rogue was designed with the intent that they would get Sneak Attack every round by hiding, so... kinda screwing them over with that. At least for ranged. Melee works anyway because of an adjacent creature.
Oofta
Legend
They get sneak attack if their target has an enemy adjacent. They don't need advantage. In games that I've played in the rogue gets sneak attack the vast majority of times even without hiding.
In addition, rogues in my games get to attack from hiding on a pretty regular basis. Just not every round and not by the lazy "I hide behind the fighter every round".
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
May I ask why? What problem are you solving with this?
Oofta
Legend
Verisimilitude. I like my games to make sense and be logical. Without some supernatural capabilities, if someone can clearly see the rogue they probably are going to. The idea of a halfling popping out successfully from behind the fighter round after round is sillier than I want to deal with.
Which, again, does not mean the rogue can't hide and snipe on a pretty regular basis. It just takes a little bit of effort, creativity and moving around to different positions. I make sure to set up encounter environments that allow it on a regular basis.
I know this probably doesn't matter to a lot of people but I don't want my games to be game-mechanic first I want it to be narrative-fantasy-story first.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Okay, but wouldn't a change of narration fix that? The halfling isn't completely unseen, but is able to confuse the enemy enough for a momentary advantage that is the similar to being completely hidden? For me, verisimilitude involves no one having eagle-eyed radar vision that spots anything peeking out even a little bit. YMMV, of course, and you're welcome to your play, it's right way to play for you, I'm just interested in why people make choices to limit class/race abilities. In the immediate case, there's no abuse that I can see -- it's not the only effective method, it's not overly effective, and it brings the rogue class damage up to expectations.
I'm actually recently playing in a friend's game who is a long time player in my games. He's nerfed hiding in combat to 'you cannot hide in combat.' He reasons are that he just doesn't like hiding in combat for reasons. I think it's because he doesn't like one of the other players who usually plays rogues and is always hiding -- even to the point of running away to hide at critical moments. Regardless, I haven't extracted a different answer from him other than "I don't like how player Y is always hiding', and we've been gaming together for almost 20 years. If you want your peccadilloes, I really have no leg to stand on to question them, so thanks for indulging me.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
Like [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] , I'm not ruling that way based on balance but rather verisimilitude.
If the halfling was hiding behind, say, a large wagon, I think that would be "enough" - one shot comes from the top of the wagon, then the left, then from under the horses... But hiding behind just one guy (or a barrel) is not enough - at least not more than once. If there is an ambush, and the halfling was behind the barrel and the foes didn't know about it, of course the first attack would succeed as a sneak attack - but then they would need to re-position.
And I do agree with you that rogues' damage isn't out of hand.
If the halfling was hiding behind, say, a large wagon, I think that would be "enough" - one shot comes from the top of the wagon, then the left, then from under the horses... But hiding behind just one guy (or a barrel) is not enough - at least not more than once. If there is an ambush, and the halfling was behind the barrel and the foes didn't know about it, of course the first attack would succeed as a sneak attack - but then they would need to re-position.
And I do agree with you that rogues' damage isn't out of hand.
I love it when the narrative is argued as the driving reason, yet they completely ignore that the target is also fighting two to 6 other guys.
What? you mean "i am sparring with these two guys, watching for the quick opening if either of them moves away without disengage for a reaction Ao, keeping my shield spell always primed for a reaction cover if that sword gets too close but not way too close and yeah also i spot that halfling if he steps out from behind the fighter automatically..." narratively compelling?
that said, i generally have a thing i do sometimes for sorts of dubious "do they spot me as i reveal myself before i get my hidden-fu on" questions - i ask for another hide check (no action) solely to determine a winner and a loser in the kind of distracted vs kind of coming out from hiding contest.
Oofta
Legend
What is allowed as "distracted" is of course a spectrum. Like [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION], I allow it once but then you have to move around. That's quite a bit different from banning hiding altogether. I just think there has to be a healthy balance.
If rogues needed advantage to get sneak attack I might change my ruling to make the class viable. They don't.
Similar Threads
